I was Bad But Jack Johnson Was Crazy!

[SlimTrae]

I alway believe that Jack johnson was overrated. His biggest wins were against Tommy Burns and Standley Ketchel. both of them didn't weight more than 168 pounds and was not close to 6 feet tall. Johnson was 6'3" tall and between 205-225 pounds. Jim Jeffries was the same size as Johnson. He came out of retirement not boxing for 6 years and was up to 325 pounds. He had to lose a 100 pounds and was 35 years old. his resume doesn't stack up to other great Champs.

No problems for me, quite a few think he was over rated. Yet he won the title held it about 5 years? difference between his dry stretch and say Dempsey- he just sat on the title. Plus I'm not too sure who JJ evaded during his run and who he failed to fight on his way to the title.
Nor am I sure who was there- but didn't want to fight him-hence the search for the great white hope took till he was 37?
Another difference we have is the weight concept. Consider Mr. B: Was Jack Johnson to his era what Lennox was to the 90s, Both Klitschkos were to the Y2k & Fury & AJ for today's era? A HW since Vitali & Wlad were always dwarfed in size, height & reach.

Some say there should be a Super HW because their size alone is enough to clinch their way to a points win. Well that is how I see JJ. it is not his fault he had size over the HW's of that day. And guys smaller than him didn't have fights where nothing they did worked. Those clips show how advanced he was mentally/strategic to go along with size that was natural No PEDS baby!


His resume is fine with me. He beat who was there. Last point: I'm on the fence with resumes for fighters pre 1920ish. We have seen next to no footage of who Sullivan, Corbett, Jeffries foes. Their losses IMO only means cherry picking like it is today did not exist.